The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries into her mother’s, Mrs Y’s care. She said the Council did not allocate an appropriate staff member to investigate; that the safeguarding investigation relied on information provided by the care home and that it did not include a timeline of events.
She said Mrs Y is at risk of neglect and that she wants her concerns properly investigating.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X made a safeguarding referral about Mrs Y’s care to the Council. The Council allocated a Continuing Health Care (CHC) nurse to complete safeguarding enquiries. These were overseen by a Specialist Practitioner in the Safeguarding Adults Team. The Council wrote to Mrs X with the outcome of its enquiries.
The safeguarding enquiry found that the care home where Mrs Y lived, had not given Mrs Y prescribed hormone medication for a year. However, it said it was not clear who was responsible for that omission as it occurred following a transfer between GP practices and care homes. It said Mrs Y was now receiving the correct medication therefore there were no outstanding safeguarding concerns.
As part of the enquiries, the safeguarding investigator completed observations at the care home; reviewed care plans and care records. They said did not find any evidence to support Mrs X’s allegations of substandard care.
The enquiry said Mrs Y had not been fed a diet in line with the Speech and Language Therapists guidelines. It addressed this with the care home manager, therefore was satisfied that measures were in place to reduce risk.
The safeguarding enquiry said it did not consider visiting restrictions in place during the COVID-19 pandemic were evidence of abuse or neglect by the care home.
Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s safeguarding investigation and complained about how it had completed its enquiry. In its complaint response the Council explained: It could ask other agencies to complete a safeguarding enquiry on its behalf. It said as Mrs Y’s care was funded through CHC it asked a CHC nurse to complete the enquiries.
It confirmed the safeguarding enquiry considered information from the care home, that the investigating officer spoke to Mrs Y, her GP, Mrs X and the CQC inspector.
There were no ongoing concerns that Mrs Y was at risk from abuse or neglect therefore no reason to take further safeguarding action.
Although Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council completed its safeguarding enquiries. It took appropriate steps to assess the concerns; has satisfied itself that there is no ongoing safeguarding risks to Mrs Y and made recommendations to the care home based on its findings. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman